Comparing my chaotic listings of previous years to wpqx's orderly film log, I've decided to adapt a bit and somewhat copy his format. I hope this will make it easier for you to get the relevant information (if there is any, that is ).
Unfortunately i am not only behind on a lot of reviews but have also to catch up with my film listings from April 2006 onwards. But as I do this on another internetsite and in the old format (and I have 6 more lists to update), this shouldn't concern this thread too much.

My ratings range from 0 to 100, with 50 being the "middle". In general I liked films with a higher rating, and disliked the ones with a lower. Personal favorites start with 75, and absolutely everything with a rating above 80 is not only considered essential viewing but imo includes the best films ever made. Masterpieces start with 90, though.

I didn't rate the 4 films I watched on December 27th, 28th, because I didn't really concentrate on them. Usually when I watch a film, I try to devote all my senses and thinking, all my intensity to it. But sometimes (although it happens very rarely), I just enjoy the show.

I never ever thought I would watch Home Alone 3, because I'm a fan of the first two films, and couldn't picture a Home Alone film without Macaulay Culkin (and the formula had run out of steam, anyway). But my father was watching this on TV, and out of laziness I joined him. To my surprise, the film was very good, and very enjoyable. Maybe not quite up to the first two films, but very close.

I told you, that I didn't see anything bad the whole month!

What really surprised me, was how exceptionally great the first third of Donner's Superman is. The part that tells about Superman's childhood and adolescence is in my opinion one of the most interesting segments in American movie history (and a great translation of Comics to Film). The rest is entertaining fun.

And I had almost forgotten that the Wachowski Brothers could actually make intense and interesting films, without being pretentious jackasses.

Usually when I watch a film, I try to devote all my senses and thinking, all my intensity to it. But sometimes (although it happens very rarely), I just enjoy the show.

Why not devote all your senses and thinking to a film AND enjoy the show at the same time?
OK, we already got over this...

I can totally understand your current desires which made you decide for Lubitsch and against Antonioni, somehow, I feel the same these days though I could probably never refuse to watch an Antonioni in the Cinema if possible.

To my surprise, the film was very good, and very enjoyable. Maybe not quite up to the first two films, but very close.

I told you, that I didn't see anything bad the whole month!

Have you also seen "Scooby Doo"? After your appreciation for "Daniel, der Zauberer", I'm not so sure If you'd hate it - scary. Gosnell's direction was shockingly amateurish - considering the fact that the film's budget was something around 90 000 000 $...

Anyway, your selections were quite interesting in December, somehow like a cinematic holiday from the local "forces".

And I had almost forgotten that the Wachowski Brothers could actually make intense and interesting films, without being pretentious jackasses.

Best film of the Month: Zabriskie Point (Michelangelo Antonioni / USA / 1970) 11/10
Discovery of the Month: Inferno (Dario Argento / Italy / 1980) 8/10
Worst film of the Month: not exactly bad, but I didn't like it very much: Ah Pook Is Here (Philip Hunt / Germany / 1994) 5/10

Yes, it's not a nice thing, especially the dubbing issue (I'll try to see less of those in 2008). But one has to get used to wrong aspect ratios in German cinemas. Especially silent films are almost never shown in 1.19: 1, but in the standard Academy ratio of 1.37: 1 - the way most of them are also released on DVD. Fortunately our own cinema can show an aspect ratio of 1.19: 1 (If I think of our screening of Dreyer's Vampyr (1930) - what a revelation!!). Some sort of cropping is usually also applied for 2.35: 1 or wider aspect ratios. And sometimes the projectionist is either lazy or ignorant, and crops the image on one, two or all sides, sometimes 1.66 becomes 1.85, etc.

I didn't use to notice this before, but since I got introduced to projecting techniques myself last year, I tend to see all of this immediately.